IFTIKHAR HUSAIN CHAUDHRY, J.- This writ petition is directed against an order dated 9-3-1995 of a full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad, whereby order darted 22-6-1994 passed by the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission quashing the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner was set aside.
2. The petitioner was employee as Time Keeper of ICI Soda Ash Works Khewara. District Jehelum. Lie was issued a charge-sheet dated 1.10.1992 on the allegation of having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 10.000/- on 5.10.1995 and also for leaving the place of duly unauthorisedly. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 15.11.1992 and later submitted a Petition No. 4A(115)/94- L/24( 113)/94-L before the N.I.R.C, on 9.3.1994 under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner submitted another application under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 32 of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure & functions) Regulations, 1973. Complaining that the management had falsely implicated the petitioner on account of his union activities as President ol the I.C.I, federation of Workers Union and General Secretary of the I.C.I. Employees Union and that he was being victimized due to his activities in the aforesaid labour union.
3. The petition was resisted by the Management. I.C.I. The parties produced certain documents and later the Chairman of the Commission by order dated 22.6.1994 quashed the charge-sheet issued on 1.11. 1992.
4. The I.C.I.-respondent submitted an appeal before the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. The Full Bench, after hearing the parties, by majority of two to one concluded that the charge-sheet was issued to the present petitioner fora valid reason and ultimately resulted in his removal from the company's employment and that it had no connection with the trade union activities of the respondent.-One of the Members of the Full Bench supported the pleas raised by the petitioner and passed a dissenting .Order in the matter. This judgment dated 9-3-1995 had been assailed through the present petition which was admitted to regular healing on 6-6-1995. Learned counsel .For the parlies have been heard in the matter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the charge- sheet would show that no offence was committed by the petitioner and this, as a matter of tact, was used as a weapon to wreak vengeance on the petitioner for his union activities in which he took part as President as wells as General Secretary of the I.C.I. Workers Union, it was contended that the material produced before the Chairman N.I.R.C sufficiently proved that the petitioner was on half day's leave and for that reason he could not have been charge-sheeted for being absent-from the place of duty without permission. About the second limb of the charge relating to misappropriation of Rs. 10,000/- belonging to the company, it was contended that this too was not adequately proved and the Chairman N.I.R.C, was justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was being victimized and at of the. Management in issuing the charge-sheet amounted to an unfair practice and the charge-sheet was rightly quashed. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no material before the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C, on the basis of which they proceeded to conclude that it was not a case of unfair practice and. As a matter of fact, since provisions of C.P.C, and Cr.P.C.Were applicable to the matter in issue, the Full Bandi ought to have remanded the matter back to the Chairman/Single Member. N.I.R.C, to record evidence in the matter and then to conclude with definiteness that it was not a case of unfair labour practice. It was contended that the impugned order was passed subjectively and without taking in to account the real background of relations between the parties and the Full Bench had erred in coming to the conclusion, it did.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that when the matter was being heard -by the Chairman, the petitioner as well as the respondent/Management had produced certain documents and the petitioner never asked the Chairman to follow any particular procedure relating to recording of- evidence in the matter. It was contended that no further evidence was sought to be led by the petitioner and, in these circumstances, the petitioner could not raised such a plea now that the Full Bench ought to have ordered recording of evidence in the matter. It was submitted that the male rail brought on record sufficiently proved that it was not a case of unfair labour practice and absence of the petitioner from the duty at the relevant lime was also adequately shown by the material which is already on record and that the petitioner himself had admitted removal of Rs. 10.000/- from the office and had returned the same and a receipt was also executed by him in this behalf, it was contended that in the written reply dated 15-11-1 submitted by the petitioner, he-raised only general pleas and there was no specific denial regarding absence from duty or for misappropriation of money and the pleas now being raised amounted to an after- thought.
6. The petitioner has already been removed from the company's employment on the basis of charge-sheet issued to him and a petition submitted by the petitioner against his removal from the employment is pending before Punjab Labour Court No.6 at Rawalpindi.
7. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner reads as under:- "It has been reported that on 5th October, 1992, you clocked in at 1411 hrs and took charge of your duty at the Time Office from Muhammad Al'sar at 1500 hrs which was the starting the of the evening shift. Later at aboul 1635 hrs you hurriedly handed over the key of the cash locker to the reliever Time Keeper. Raghib Hussain who was also on duty and you left the Time Office without handing over the charge whereas you were required to count the cash (available at the Time Office for Payments to drivers etc. In of duty hours) and also to hand over the charge of your duty to Raghib Hussain before leaving. However, a casual leave application for half day was left by you on the table without obtaining any approval thereof from the concerned Manager. Raghib Hussain immediately counted the cash and found the same to be short by Rs.9,998-50 since the cash in hand was noted as Rs.20,000/- in the Cash register. He accordingly reported the matter to the Security Supervisor Mian Muhammad, who further informed the Finance Manager, Nadeem Rashid.
On receiving this information, the Finance Manager reached the Time Office and he recounted the cash in the presence of Assistant Finance Manager, Ali Ahmad and the Security Supervisor, Mian Muhammad and found the amount to be Rs. 10001-50 instead of Rs.20.000/- which fact was verified by them on the relevant page of the cash Register. A message was sent to you at your residence for investigating the matter. You came back to the Time Office as about 1745 hrs and admitted in the presence of Asstt: Manager Admn & IR. Tanvir Iqbal Khan and the I.R.
Superintendent Raja Muhammad Azhar that you had removed Rs. 10,000/- from the cash available in the Time Office. Thereafter you deposited back Rs.10,000/- with Tanvir Iqbal Khan in the presence of Raja Muhammad Azhar and Raghib Hussain".
A reply thereto was submitted by the petitioner in which he had stated as under :- ((Urdu Taxt Paragraphs))
8. It would be seen that as far as the allegations relating to leaving of place of duty at. 1635 hrs is concerned, there is no deniad by the petitioner in the reply given by him. It was also alleged in the charge sheet that out of Rs.20,000/- which were retained at the time Office for payment, there was a short fall of Rs. 10,000/- and that after a message was sent to the petitoner, who returned at 1745 hrs and admitted in presence of Tanvir Iqbal and Raja Muhammad Azhar regarding removal of Rs.
10.000/- from the cash available in the time Office which was deposited back by petitioner. There is also no denial fo these allegations by the petitioner. Later, he submitted an application before the N.I.R.C.Which was hand over to the Chairman of the Commission. The petitioner produced non- management leave form dated 5-10- 1992 in respect of him in which leave for half day on the aforesaid date was duly sanctioned. He also produced salary slip for the month of October in which he was recorded as being on leave for half day on 5-10-1992. The statement of leave of the employees for the month of October. 1992. Was also submitted by the petitioner which showed him to be on half day's leave on 5.10.1992. The statement of leave of the employees for the month of October, 1992, was also submitted by the petitioner which showed him to be on half day's leave on 5-10-1992. No other material was produced by the petitioner before the Chairman N.I.R.C, when he was singly dealing with the matter. No other evidence was sought to be led by the petitioner nor he had requested for any record of the management company to be examined.
9. On the basis of the documents/material produced before the Chairman N.I.R.C. , the Chairman came to a certain conclusion and quashed the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the matter before the full Ranch was determination of vires of the order of Chairman alone. The petitioner had not urged before the, Commission that he was prejudiced for non-recording-non-production of any evidence and obviously, he cannot be allowed to rais the plea at this stage.
10. The majority of the full range came to the conclusion after examination of the record that the petitioner was not the office bearer of any Labour Union at the the when the incident dated 5-10- 1992 forming basis of the charge-sheet, took place and that he was not charge-sheeted on the basis of any union activities. A perusal of the charge-sheet or the attending circumstances in which this was issued supported the conclusion drawn by the full Raneh. It was not the case of the petitioner that he had taken leave for half day in order to participate or promote union activities. He was absent from the duly without leave and the documents produced by him did not show that he had obtained leave in advance for the period of his absence from the Time keeper's office.
Similarly, the second limb of charge-sheet against the petitioner was that he had removed Rs.
10,000 - from the Time Keeper's office unauthorisedly and that he had relumed the same in the presence of the officials of the company. A receipt in this behalf was also written which was signed by the petitioner and excepting disowning his signatures, he had not produced or sought to produce any evidence before the N.I.R.C. single Bench or the Full Bench) to disprove that the Signatures on the receipt were fabricated. The Full Bench had also noted that this receipt could not go un-noticed. Tbe petitioner has not shown at any stage of proceedings before the N.I.R.C, that his at of removal of Rs. 10,000/- had anything to do with the union activities. The facts and circumstances which surrounded the issuance of charge-sheet do not warrant the allegation that the petitioner was being scrubbed for being an active unionist. The charge-sheet related to misconduct and now the petitioner stands removed from the employment of the company. The matter of removal of the petitioner from the employment of the company. The matter of removal fo the petitioner from the employment of the company is sub judice before Labour Court at present, also. The validity of the charge-sheet or correctness of allegations contained therein are to be adjudicated upon by a competent forum. For the present, no material exists on record to show that the charge-sheet was issued on consistent other than those contained in the charge-sheet itself.
The view taken by the majority of the Full Bench of N.I.R.C, is not defective or slanted in any manner.
11. It may be observed that the jurisdiction of N.I.R.C. In such matters is not plenary but it is limited to sale-guarding the promotion of healthy trade-union activities. Where an employer victimizes any employee. On the basis of his participation or likely participation in promoting labour union activities, the N.I.R.C. can intervene to check nefarious design of an employer. But where an employee is guilty of niis-conduct and tries to take shelter belling the umbrella of union activities, such conduct of the employee cannot be protected by the N.I.R.C, it appears that the petitioner had been office bearer of Labour Union previously, but at the the when this incident took place, he was sot holding any office, lie had not shown that on the relevent day. He was to take pan in any Union related activities and, as such, the possible conclusion is that he was revising the plea in order to save himself from the rigours of the events.
12. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case in proper prospective, the impugned order is found to have been passed on just and proper considerations. Consequently, writ petition is considered to be without any merit and the same stands dismissed without any order as to its costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.